reply to at1nennon of · 2020. 1. 4. · jpg rab meeting minutes or the next scheduled meeting,...

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 2 -0 " -"

U.S. ARMY SOLDIER AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL COMMAND

5183 BLACKHAWK ROAD

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010-5424

REPLY TO

AT1nENnON OF June 21, 2000

BRAC Environmental Coordinator

Member Jefferson Proving Ground

Restoration Advisory Board

Dear Member:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the

Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) Restoration Advisory Board

(RAB) meeting minutes for the meeting held on Wednesday, May

31, 2000 at the Madison/Jefferson County Public Library.

Due to schedule conflicts, the next meeting of the JPG RAB

has been re-scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2000, for

7:00 PM at the Jennings County Public Library in North

Vernon.

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed

JPG RAB meeting minutes or the next scheduled meeting,

please contact me at 1-800-392-2015, extension 5-2381.

Si erely,

Paul D. Cloud

JPG BRAC Environmental Coordinator

K0

JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD

COPY

May 31, 2000

7:00 P.M.

Madison-Jefferson County Library 420 West Main Street Madison, IN 47250

DATE:

TIME:

PLACE:

PRESENT: Paul Cloud, Co-Chair Richard Hill, Co-Chair

Sharon Shields, Reporter

Audience Members

Sharon Shiefds SSLS5. *.porting Servi

3650 N.Old SR 62, Madison, IN 47250

1 A public hearing of the Jefferson Proving Ground

2 Restoration Advisory Board meeting was held at the Madison

3 Jefferson County Public Library, 420 West Main Street,

4 Madison, IN at 7:00 P.M. on May 31, 2000.

5

6 OPENING STATEMENTS BY MR. PAUL CLOUD:

7 Okay. Good evening. I would like to get

8 started. This is a meeting of the Jefferson Proving Ground

9 Restoration Advisory Board. I think most of you may know me

10 but to refresh your memories my name is Paul Cloud. I work

11 for the United States Army and I represent the Army on the

12 environmental restoration for the Proving Ground. I am the

13 Army's co-chair for the Restoration Advisory Board. I'll

14 introduce Richard Hill in a moment. He's the community co

15 chair. I would hope that everyone takes a copy of the

16 handouts we have on the back table also. If necessary take

17 one (1) of my business cards. It has all the phone numbers,

18 E-mail addresses, mailing addresses to get in touch with me.

19 We even have a toll free number that you can utilize. Also

20 if you're not on our mailing list make sure that you do sign

21 in and give me your mailing address and we will make sure

22 that you get copies of future notices for future meetings.

23 With that I'd like to introduce Richard Hill. Richard the

24 floor is yours.

2

1 MR. RICHARD HILL:

2 Well, well, thank you Paul. Good evening.

3 Glad you all could make it tonight. I did want to mention

4 one (1) thing that - that's not on the agenda and so I don't

5 forget I will go ahead and mention it right now. We had

6 the RAB, the community RAB, had gone through Diane Henshel

7 and her associates and help and all that to do some of the

8 evaluations of documents, Remedial Investigation documents,

9 for the Army on areas south of the firing line and they have

10 completed that examination and I have copies of that but I

11 don't have copies tonight. But I will be sending out that

12 to the RAB. It's another section. And we weren't able to

13 have it on the agenda tonight at any rate so probably next

14 week I will get that out to the other RAB members.

15

16 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

17 And if anyone else who is not a "formal RAB

18 member" would like a copy all they have to do is contact Ken

19 Knouf, the Army's site manager at the Proving Ground, and we

20 will insure that you get a copy of that document for your

21 information, review, whatever interest you might have.

22 Richard do you have any other comments?

23

24

3

1 MR. RICHARD HILL:

2 No I don't think so. Let's go ahead and get

3 started.

4

5 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

6 Okay. We've done the first part. The next 7 thing we'll get into and I'll just identify all the agenda 8 items right now. We'll talk a little bit about the UXO 9 clearance that's proposed by the Army on the western parcel

10 of Jefferson Proving Ground which is the last area in the 11 cantonment parcel that needs to be addressed for UXO. I'll 12 talk a little bit about the Findings of Suitability to 13 Transfer for various parcels within the cantonment area. 14 Then we have a discussion not only by myself but also the 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is here and they will 16 talk along with the Army staff about the Army's proposal for 17 the termination of their depleted uranium license for the DU 18 and the impact area. And then we'll have an open discussion

19 period and closing remarks and we will be done. So without 20 further ado we will start with the Unexploded Ordnance 21 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis. For those of you that 22 were at the November RAB meeting here in town you were

23 present when that public meeting was held and a comment 24 period for that document commenced. We in the Army have

4

I

1 received a number of comments from not only the State and

2 the EPA but also the RAB membership. We are still resolving

3 and refining our responses to that and revising the

4 document. I expect that that will be complete within about

5 a week and we will staff it as necessary up through my chain

6 of command and as necessary up to and including if necessary

7 the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board who is the

8 regulator for unexploded ordnance. So based on that I

9 expect this summer to have a revised document with the

10 responses to comments out for public review. The Army's

11 goal is by the end of summer to have awarded the contract to

12 commence the work in that area. This gives a brief review

13 of the significant steps that we've gone through so far. It

14 goes up through the meeting we had last November, the

15 comment period and when it ended. We have received those

16 comments and again we're looking at June-July time frame for

17 the revised document and response to comments. And by the

18 end of summer to have a contract awarded for actual field

19 work to commence. Again for anyone's edification if they're

20 not familiar with the parcel that we're referring to, we're

21 referring to this parcel right in here (indicating) outlined

22 by this area approximately three hundred (300) acres. It's

23 on the western side of the airfield and there is no

24 industrial development of any kind in there. There's no

5

1 environmental contamination that we're aware of in that

2 site. It was identified as having a potential for UXO so

3 the Army in its commitment will address that issue for that

4 parcel. Findings of Suitability to Transfer. The Central

5 Area FOST as a number of you may know is a document that was

6 signed about this time last year by the Army as a suitable

7 parcel for transfer from federal ownership to Mr. Ford of

8 the Ford Lumber and Building Supply Company. This gives

9 some of the chronological history of the document, how large

10 the parcel is, how many buildings, the review period, the

11 responses. Down at the bottom of this particular page

12 identifies the one (1) outstanding issue that remains to be

13 resolved between the Army and Mr. Ford before the parcel

14 will be transferred and that's the inspection of the - those

15 buildings that are or will be utilized for residential

16 habitation. I need to have a lead base paint inspection and

17 risk assessment. And if that assessment determines that a

18 cleanup of some order is required then that needs to also be

19 done and there are specific regulations in the Code of

20 Federal Regulations that talk about that under HUD. And

21 there are also Army and Department of Defense policies that

22 we have coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency

23 on that specific issue also. I expect that this summer the

24 inspection and assessment will be done and then all we will

6

1 need in the Army is a land survey identifying the geographic

2 boundaries in an official formal legal manner by Mr. Ford

3 and then we will in the Army create and present to him the

4 Deed Title Transfer documentation for this parcel. And it

5 is fully expected that by the end of this year or hopefully

6 before that title will transfer from the Army to Ford Lumber

7 and Building Supply for that approximate twelve hundred

8 (1200) acre parcel. Now you can see the cross - the one (1)

9 large cross hatched area in the center. That is the central

10 cantonment area parcel. With one (1) exception there are no

11 holes in it. And that one (1) hole is what we refer to as

12 the abandoned landfill/burn area. It was not possible to go

13 around that in a expeditious and easy manner so we just

14 carved it out with a buffer area and that will not be

15 transferred. But everything else that's cross hatched is

16 identified as the central cantonment area parcel is

17 approximately the twelve hundred (1200) acres we're

18 referring to. There are a couple of others in there. The

19 Krueger Lake area has already been transferred to the county

20 and that's the park parcel that now belongs to Jefferson

21 County. The PaperMill Road-Woodfill area up in the upper

22 left is a parcel that was transferred to Mr. Ford about two

23 (2) years ago. He subsequently sold it to the Indiana

24 Department of Transportation. The small little area just to

7

1 the south of that, referred to as the DRMO area, that FOST

2 has been put out. I have a couple of slides to discuss

3 about that in a moment. And then the last one (1) is

4 Building 216 on Woodfill Road. As most of you know that

5 building was sold to the Madison Port Authority along with

6 the seventeen (17) to eighteen (18) miles of trackage on the

7 Proving Ground. Getting to the DRMO area it's about five

8 and a half (51A) acres. There is one (1) building in that

9 area. We are aware that INDOT is still interested in it

10 once the Army has transferred it to Mr. Ford. We have gone

11 through a review process and a couple of comment iterations

12 on that particular document. Was determined that there was

13 some additional soil samples that needed to be taken to

14 resolve some comments. And it was basically as a

15 confirmation that we had reduced the level of contamination

16 in that area to an acceptable level for the intended reuse.

17 This is an industrial/commercial reuse so we need that

18 criteria vice, a residential scenario. And that's how the

19 property will be transferred as the thirty-six (36) acres

20 above it. The thirty-six (36) acres cannot be used for

21 residential usage. It's a commercial/industrial transfer.

22 Right now where we stand on this particular FOST is that the

23 revised document was provided to the State and the EPA with

24 a response to their comments and a copy of the additional

8

1 sample results and we have requested either a concurrence or

2 an identification of outstanding issues by the end of this

3 week on that document. Once we have received one (1) of

4 those two (2) things then the Army would proceed on with

5 staffing it up to either getting it signed as acceptable or

6 to resolve any comments that they felt needed to still be

7 resolved. And we would go on from there. There is no lead

8 base paint sampling that needs to be taken there because

9 there's no residential - residences or building structures

10 and it won't be transferred as a residential parcel. So

11 there wouldn't be that issue to contend with on this

12 particular parcel. Again that's the small little area

13 (indicating) in that one (1) corner just below the

14 PaperMill Road area just to the northeast of the airfield.

15 On the airfield parcel that document went out last summer

16 also. That was for the transfer of approximately six

17 hundred and fifty (650) - we've done a little closer look at

18 it it's probably closer to eight hundred (800) acres. We

19 did have a public comment period. We did receive some

20 comments from the State and the EPA. In the meantime we in

21 the Army, the Department of Defense, have been looking at

22 what affects or impacts the transfer of property that is not

23 available for "unrestricted use", unrestricted meaning you

24 could have residential out there; you could have day care

9

I

1 centers; you could have commercial/industrial; you could

2 have agricultural or recreational. There would be no

3 restrictions on its use. The way that the document for the

4 airfield was written it was written for commercial/

5 industrial use only. There was not an option for

6 residential. So if the parcel had been transferred under

7 the conditions of the original document then anyone living

8 out there would have had to move or Mr. Ford would have had

9 to come back to us after having done a lead base paint

10 inspection and risk assessment and any cleanup that was

11 required to ask the Army to remove that restriction. And we

12 would only remove it after we had coordinated that issue

13 with the State and the EPA. And that's how any deed

14 restriction will be lifted regardless of what it is. It's

15 not just a simply request. It has to meet certain technical

16 and administrative and legal criteria. Because of the fact

17 that there were three (3) small soil contaminated sites in

18 this airfield parcel and the level of contamination was not

19 significant or massive, the money was already available to

20 address those parcels to reduce those levels to the

21 residential standard. And the Army made a site specific

22 decision on this parcel that they would improve the

23 condition of those sites to allow this parcel to be

24 transferred as a residential parcel. That will - may be

10

1 applied at other areas of Jefferson. It may not be. But

2 it's a - it's a site specific issue and it will be dealt

3 with on the - on the merits of the case for a particular

4 parcel. And it has a lot to do with the types and the

5 severity of any institutional controls or deed restrictions

6 that would be required to be implemented and monitored and

7 administered and reported and enforced. It also has to do

8 with the amount of money it might take to improve the

9 condition of the property. There are a number of things

10 that the Department of the Army and Department of Defense

11 look at when they analyze these things. So as a result of

12 the fact that the Army has made this decision, this

13 particular FOST is being held in abeyance right now, will

14 not be responded to in the comments. When the Army has in

15 fact removed the additional soil and has the analytical

16 sample results that confirm that we have reduced the level

17 of contamination in these particular sites to an acceptable

18 residential criteria, then we will come out with a revised

19 document, a new thirty (30) day review period and we will

20 present the document again, but it will be for an increased

21 or an enhanced use for residential usage. We expect that

22 the work will probably occur late this summer or early fall

23 and the document for that particular area would probably be

24 out by the end of the year or the very first part of 2001.

11

1 That's what our goal is right now. The airfield parcel for

2 lack of a better description basically follows this up here

3 (indicating) across Woodfill Road, down Tokyo and then

4 across Engineer's Road. And that comes to about eight

5 hundred (800) acres. There is one (1) dog leg in there that

6 goes around a couple of our eye sites that would not be

7 transferred that are not inside the airfield that we have

8 not decided to enhance to a residential standard. But

9 that's a different situation. Regarding the Army's license

10 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we do in fact hold an

11 active license for what can be loosely described, and if I

12 say something technically wrong I'm sure our friends from

13 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will correct me, basically

14 for storage in the ground right now. There is approximately

15 we estimate seventy (70,000) to eighty thousand (80,000)

16 kilograms of depleted uranium projectiles out in an

17 approximate two thousand (2,000) acre rectangle north of the

18 firing line. None of those projectiles were ever tested

19 against what we define or classify as hard targets. They

20 were all shot through cloth targets that were suspended

21 between large, tall telephone poles basically checking the

22 accuracy of the weapons and the projectiles themselves.

23 There was no impact against armor plating, any aerialization

24 of the DU that has occurred at other proving grounds so

12

1 we're fortunate in that particular case. As some of the

2 bullets here indicate we have proposed to the Nuclear

3 Regulatory Commission to have a restricted reuse termination

4 of the license. That means that the area would not be

5 accessible for unrestricted access for hunting, bird

6 observation, recreational usage or for anything of that

7 nature. It would be a restricted reuse termination. This

8 second bullet indicates we've submitted a revised document

9 to the NRC August of last year. The NRC reviewed that.

10 They asked a number of questions. We are in the process now

11 of rec - I think actually we have in fact responded to their

12 questions in a conceptual format of how we intend to provide

13 them a detailed technical response. And basically that

14 detailed technical response will be incorporated in a

15 revised license termination or decommissioning plan,

16 whichever phrase you feel more comfortable with. The last

17 bullet there does indicate that we did provide the

18 conceptual responses to the NRC on the 22nd of this month.

19 Now it's our goal to have the revised document and - and an

20 accompanying institutional control plan that would discuss

21 how we're going to restrict access to that parcel by the end

22 of September of this year. The NRC has a NEPA process that

23 they're going to need to go through before the license is

24 terminated. There has also been a request to the NRC from

13

1 Save the Valley for an administrative hearing based on what

2 was perceived as - with the current plan, not the revised

3 plan in September, but the current plan as a number of

4 questions and inadequacies as to specifics and details as to

5 how the license would be terminated. The Army believes that

6 none of those questions are of a nature that are

7 insurmountable. They are realistic, reasonable, well

8 thought out questions and we believe that they will all be

9 answered in a revised document. We are coordinating very

10 closely with Save The Valley organization and the NRC and

11 the Administrative Hearing Judge on that particular issue

12 and I think everything will ultimately work out fairly well.

13 The rest of the bullets on this particular page shows you

14 the chronological sequence from the time that the hearing

15 file was established to a pre-hearing conference call we had

16 earlier this month. And the fact that the Army will in fact

17 provide draft documents to Save The Valley and that we will

18 provide regular updates and statuses to Save The Valley and

19 the NRC. Are there any questions regarding anything that I

20 may have discussed whether it's the UXO, the Findings of

21 Suitability to Transfer, the lead base paint or the depleted

22 uranium? Yes sir?

23

24

14

1 MR. ROBERT ROSENTHAL:

2 You explained what restricted reuse doesn't

3 - doesn't allow. What would it allow?

4

5 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

6 Very little. Right now the Army does not

7 allow anyone into that area unless one (1) they're escorted

8 by the Army. And two (2) they stay on the roads. Or if

9 they're escorted by Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel to

10 access the monitoring wells which is a requirement of the

11 license that we take semi-annual sampling of the ground

12 water to see if there has been any contamination of the

13 ground water. Other than that no one accesses that area.

14 And that's basically how it would stay. Does that answer

15 your question?

16


18 Yes. Thank you.

19

20 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

21 Yes sir?.

22

23 MR. DON BARNES:

24 You mentioned the monitoring wells. Has

15

1 anything showed up yet?

2

3 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

4 No sir.

5

6 MR. DON BARNES:

7 Nothing?

8

9 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

10 No.

11

12 MS. VICKI JENKINS:

13 Are there legal implications for the

14 liability for termination of the license? For future

15 liability? For example this is metal and metal corrodes

16 over time. And are there - how - the solvents there I think

17 are like fifteen (15) to thirty (30) year monitoring.

18

19 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

20 Un-huh (yes).

21


23 That we discussed. What is your future

24 monitoring plans for this?

16

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 That specific detail we have not come to an

3 agreement with the NRC or the Save The Valley organization

4 as to how long we will continue to monitor. I suspect it

5 will be a long time. Don't have a specific number but I

6 would suspect that we would continue to monitor. We may

7 decrease the frequency with the condition that as soon as

8 there is a detection of something moving, because we have

9 several miles for it to move before it would ever leave the

10 Proving Ground, then we would increase the frequency and

11 possibly look at taking other actions. But that would be

12 dependent upon if and when it ever starts to migrate. It

13 has been out in the field for up to sixteen (16) years now.

14 We have very little data that shows movement more than a few

15 inches to a foot or so. One (1) of the advantages to

16 depleted uranium is when it is exposed to the atmosphere and

17 sits in the ground at Jefferson it develops an oxide coat

18 and then its deterioration basically stops. That is

19 something to our benefit for the material that we are not

20 going to be able to recover or don't recover intentionally.

21 Does that answer your question?

22


24 For the most part.

17

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 Okay. Yes ma'am?

3

4 MS. MARY CLASHMAN:

5 How many acres did you say that was

6 restricted access is - is?

7

8 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

9 The depleted uranium impact area is within

10 the fifty-one thousand (51,000) acres of the firing range of

11 Jefferson. It makes up approximately two thousand (2,000)

12 acres.

13


15 So two thousand (2,000) acres will be

16 restricted?

17

18 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

19 Yes ma'am. But there are other areas inside

20 that fifty-one thousand (51,000) that we don't allow people

21 to go into now for other reasons, specifically UXO. So this

22 - you can't just take two thousand (2,000) from fifty-one

23 thousand (51,000) and say now there's forty-nine thousand

24 (49,000) that's going to be available for access.

18

1 level plane field. And there's a lot of vegetation and a

2 lot of trees in that area. So to put the fence in in that

3 area you might have to go all the way out to the road and

4 that would make the fence even larger and you would still

5 have the UXO issue to contend with.

6


8 Well so then how will it be restricted?

9

10 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

11 There are access roads into the area that

12 already have locked barricades that you have to have a key

13 to get through those on to. You have to have a key or to

14 get access through the fence at one (1) of the gates to get

15 access north of the firing line anyway period. The only

16 other way is to fly over by helicopter or cut a hole in the

17 fence which is trespassing. And that's a federal offense on

18 federal property. But we have signs, we have barricades, we

19 have locked gates. Those are all part of our plan to keep

20 the access restricted. We have had no documented cases of

21 unauthorized access in this area since the DU has been

22 placed there and since the Proving Ground has been closed.

23 But that is an issue that will continue to be monitored.

24 And the Army will continue to have some presence here. As

20

1 to how many and how long we have not determined that. But

2 that will be continued - continually monitored though to

3 make sure that the access and the maintenance of the roads

4 for us to get in and to monitor the - the ground water

5 through the monitoring wells, the roads are being maintained

6 in a suitable condition for us to access the area. And if

7 there is at some future time a silver bullet design where we

8 can go in and remove the UXO at a very safe cost effective

9 manner then we may be able to in fifty (50) or a hundred

10 (100) years address the UXO and the DU. That method and

11 process doesn't exist right now. Yes ma'am?

12


14 Was DU used in any of the other missiles

15 that were shot across the firing line, north of the firing

16 line?

17

18 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

19 The only ones that it was used in were fired

20 into the DU impact area.

21


23 So it's -

24

21

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 They're tank rounds. Either 105 or 120

3 millimeter.

4


6 Okay so this is a hundred (100) percent the

7 only place those are?

8

9 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

10 Yes ma'am.

11


13 Okay.

14

15 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

16 There was DU in some of the buildings south

17 of the firing line at one (1) time. We in the Army restored

18 those buildings, documented that to the NRC. They came in

19 and did an independent verification/confirmation of that and

20 the license was amended three (3) years or four (4) years

21 ago and it now only applies to north of the firing line. The

22 area south of the firing line has been released for

23 unrestricted use from a radiological prospective for DU.

24 Yes sir?

22

1 MR. TIM MALONEY:

2 Paul you mentioned some numbers on how many

3 projectiles you thought were out there. What do those

4 numbers mean?

5

6 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

7 I don't know the number of projectiles. We

8 estimate somewhere in the neighborhood of seventy (70,000)

.9 to eighty thousand (80,000) kilograms. I believe the

10 license allowed us to have at any one (1) time somewhere

11 around two hundred (200,000) to two hundred and fifty

12 thousand (250,000) kilograms. Is that about right Richard?

13

14 MR. RICHARD HERRING:

15 Yeah.

16

17 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

18 Does that answer your question?

19

20 MR. TIM MALONEY:

21 Yes.

22

23 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

24 Any other questions? Yes ma'am.

23

1 MS. BETSY VONDERHIDE:

2 I heard you mention earlier a few minutes

3 ago that if it's an eventuality that the technology is

4 discovered in the next fifty (50) to a hundred (100) years

5 that - that we can get rid of the UXO and DU. What is - is

6 there anything in place to encourage this that anybody is

7 going to pursue that technology?

8

9 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

10 Actually there are two (2) things. One (1)

11 has been a UXO technology demonstration that has been going

12 on at Jefferson and other sites for a number of years and

13 that there will be another round of that investigation to

14 look at the state of the art for UXO detection this summer

15 at Jefferson. I believe four (4) or five (5) contractors

16 will be in here late this summer to look at the "state of

17 the art". Also when the Range Rule that the Department of

18 Defense is working on is final and is implemented there is a

19 requirement as it is currently written that for those areas

20 that you do not cleanup and that you fall under a

21 classification of what's called Technical Infeasibility to

22 go cleanup, which Jefferson would probably quality for, then

23 that kicks you into a recurring review three (3), five (5),

24 ten (10), fifteen (15) years, an infinite item, until you

24

1 come up with this silver bullet. Yes ma'am?

2


4 Well I'm just - I'm pleased to hear you say

5 that because I represent the City of Madison and it is - it

6 is the position of the City of Madison that that land not be

7 abandoned by the Army. We understand that the technology is

8 - was too expensive now.

9

10 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

11 Un-huh (yes).

12


14 But we certainly would expect the government

15 to honor its pledge of the 1940s that that land would be

16 eventually turned back to the citizens of Jefferson, Ripley

17 and Jennings Counties.

18

19 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

20 You should understand one (1) thing. That

21 should and if the magic silver bullet ever be invented that

22 allows a significant removal of the UXO from this area,

23 under the laws as they are currently written for BRAC

24 properties the buck has stopped at the Department of

25

I

1 Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They have

2 laid claim to that property. I would suspect that should

3 the Department of Defense and the Department of Army clear a 4 significant portion of that fifty-one thousand (51,000)

5 acres of UXO they will exercise their option for titled

6 ownership. It will still be federal property but it would

7 then reside with the Department of Interior. And the 8 citizens in the community would not "have title or usage"

9 thereof. Now that can change but it can only change by a 10 Congressional action as I understand it and the way the laws

11 are currently written.

12


14 But probably the limited and the restricted

15 access will be maintained?

16

17 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

18 That's possible. That is possible. Another

19 question over here? Yes sir?

20


22 Well just an observation but isn't there a 23 problem here with finding alternatives to cleanup, to

24 undercut a motivation to develop the technologies that would

26

1 - that would lead to your silver bullet with some - at least

2 some decent strategy?

3

4 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

5 The removal - the removal of UXO or the UXO

6 issue is a very sensitive political, social, economic issue.

7 And some of what you say is true. But there is a very large

8 commitment by the Department of Defense and the Department

9 of the Army and the current administration and any future

10 administrations that I'm aware of would probably follow on

11 to continue that effort. This is not a - a JPG or an

12 Indiana or United States specific issue. This is a world

13 wide issue. Ah so it - it garners a lot of attention from

14 the world community. So there will always be pressure to

15 continue to find that silver bullet, to remove UXO, to

16 neutralize it in a cost effective and safe manner. Don't

17 know when that's going to happen. Does that answer your

18 question I hope?

19


21 Yes.

22

23 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

24 Bill?

27

1 MR. BILL CORNING:

2 Paul wouldn't you say it's really unlikely

3 that the Interior would give up the fifty-one thousand

4 (51,000) acres regardless of whether it's clear or not?

5

6 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

7 We have Dr. Joseph Robb from the U.S. Fish

8 and Wildlife Service. I don't know if he wants to respond

9 to that or not. I would not want to speak for the U.S. Fish

10 and Wildlife Service or the Department of Interior.

11

12 MR. BILL CORNING:

13 I don't blame you.

14

15 MR. JOSEPH ROBB:

16 Once a natural wildlife refuge has been

17 established it's never been taken away.

18

19 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

20 For those of you that may not know recently

21 the Army, the Air Force and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

22 Service did sign an agreement, Memorandum of Understanding,

23 to create a national wildlife refuge north of the firing

24 line at Jefferson. And it will also continue the usage by

28

1 the Air Guard in a reduced foot print with - within that

2 fifty-one thousand (51,000) acres so they can continue their

3 air to ground training. But there will be a national

4 wildlife refuge at Jefferson Proving Ground. That has been

5 approved by all three (3) agencies. Yes ma'am?

6


8 I know you say there's a place where many of

9 the DU were tested but they are basically intact shells, but

10 then you're saying that this is in a designated area that's

11 filled with those kinds of UXO. And so I'm wondering is

12 there any - I don't know enough about it - but dangers

13 posed by the other UXOs due to erosion or fire or something

14 like that? Would that cause penetration of the depleted

15 uranium and termination that's certainly related to that?

16 You mentioned monitoring of ground water. Are you doing any

17 kind of surface water monitoring or air monitoring? Again

18 especially some kind of -

19

20 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

21 We have done all of those things in the

22 past. We've also taken bio-assays of some of the species,

23 the muscles, some of the deer kidneys, livers, those types

24 of things. We never found anything that would indicate a

29

1 take up by the environment, the plants, the surface water,

2 the animals of DU in that area. It's not clear at this

3 point in time what additional - well that's not part of the

4 criteria under the existing license right now. It's not

5 clear what and if the specifics will be when the license "is

6 terminated" for restricted use.

7


9 As I - I don't know about the other things

10 but going back to the surface water I have a personal

11 concern. We live two (2) miles outside the Proving Ground

12 on Bee Creek which is the stream runs through the DU area.

13

14 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

15 Yes ma'am.

16


18 And although at this time of year it's sort

19 of inconceivable when you look at this stream and it's

20 appearing low for summer, it has massive - is subject to

21 massive flooding and it will rise eighteen (18) vertical

22 feet. And it - we've seen it move tremendously heavy, you

23 know boulders and of course things that migrate off of it.

24 So again I - I see surface water as a serious issue that

30

1 needs to be monitored since it's running right through a

2 part of the DU area. And one (1) last question pertaining

3 to that. Even with the - if there's some agreement that

4 there will be a long term monitoring I'm kind of wondering

5 whether there's going to also associate with that some kind

6 of liability or responsibility so that if the monitoring

7 determines that there is some migration that the Army will

8 actually have to do anything about it or whether it will

9 just say well this is how -

10

11 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

12 Well the Army has never made any statements

13 that would indicate they are not liable and responsible, not

14 only for the DU but for the UXO or for any of the

15 environmental contamination that we know of or that may be

16 present on the Proving Ground. The Army has no intention of

17 denying that liability or responsibility. As we remain the

18 title holder of the property we will be responsible for

19 that. Does that answer your question?

20


22 Not personally.

23

24

31

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 At my level I can make that commitment.

3 can be overruled, but at my level I can make that

4 commitment.

5


7 Go back to the - yeah. That's what I'm

8 saying. What about the surrounding UXO and should any of

9 that explode would that have impact on the DU projectiles

10 that are out there?

11

12 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

13 The only thing that I can conceive of that

14 it might impact would be to physically move it from one (1)

15 location to another. There are not that many detonations

16 that occur from UXO that is out there. It is theoretically

17 possible and that is one (1) of the unknowns and

18 uncertainties about UXO. You can have one (1) sitting there

19 for weeks, months, years and it never goes off. And then

20 for who knows what reason it decides to go off.

21


23 Yeah.

24

32

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 Or you have a prescribed or controlled burn

3 or whatever and that sets it off. Or lightning or whatever.

4


6 Right.

7

8 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

9 The only thing I'm aware that it would

10 probably do is physically move a DU fragment or penetrator

11 from one (1) physical location to another. I don't think it

12 would be of sufficient magnitude or force to cause something

13 of any significant concern that would be defined or

14 classified as an immediate threat to human health in the

15 environment. You would be looking at very small discreet

16 pieces of DU. One (1) penetrator is only about this long

17 (indicating). There are very few that are full intact in

18 the impact area. They usually when they hit the ground

19 break up. They're brittle. They're very hard and dense.

20 And when they hit something hard they tend to break up.

21 That's what they're designed to do as a weapon of war. When

22 they get inside of a tank they fragment and that's how they

23 do their job. So when they hit something hard on the ground

24 they will fragment. So you won't see a lot of real long

33

1 intact penetrators. I mean there's probably some out there

2 somewhere. They can bar - they can burrow into the ground.

3 But I don't think you'll see - you know if a round went off

4 I don't believe you would see a significant increase and

5 exposure or risk or threat to either the environment or to

6 any human health concern. But there is a possibility. It's

7 remote.

8


10 Yes. Actually it unnerved me with these

11 little pieces because I went back to the stream and I'm

12 thinking that little pieces are going to flush out that

13 stream much more easily than that.

14

15 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

16 Well one (1) of the things that is in DU's

17 favor is it's very heavy and dense. And particularly when

18 it gets into small pieces it's very hard to move something

19 like that once it's down like in the bottom of a stream or

20 or something like that because there's not a lot of surface

21 area that moving water can impact against to move it some

22 place. I mean it's still possible and it could move. And

23 if we get an indication that there is something moving off

24 of the Proving Ground the Army will have to address that.

34

I

1 We have not received any of that indication.

2


4 Right. How - I'm sorry. I want to be

5 clear. How - but how would you get that indication that it

6 could not do some through a large rain, that kind of thing?

7

8 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

9 Well again that's.- that's not part of what

10 is required currently in the license. We may have to

11 explore and resolve that issue based on negotiations with

12 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and any input from

13 concerned citizenry.

14


16 Thank you.

17

18 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

19 Diane?

20

21 MS. DIANE HENSHEL:

22 Should flooding of such magnitude occur that

23 some pieces of the DU armature, whatever form it's in, does

24 get loose and wash down the stream a bit, have you done a

35

1 testing, not you personally, but has the Army done a testing

2 to see that if it's maintained in the stream at different

3 types of age, levels of age, how much uranium might actually

4 come out of it over given periods of time?

5

6 MR'. PAUL CLOUD:

7 I'm not aware of any. There may have been

8 but I personally am not aware of any. Richard are you

9 aware?

10


12 Well I'm sure that's been tested

13 considerably. DU is not very soluble. Generally it's not

14 very soluble. And I think too what you're talking about is

15 something exploding. I - I think you can say that there

16 probably isn't any worse than what was happening when we

17 were active.

18


20 Sure.

21


23 Except for them blowing up. And then it

24 wasn't a problem that I don't think we couldn't handle.

36


2 All right. So what you're saying is your

3 interpretation is that should that even come up we need to

4 seize it, pull it up and that's the end of it?

5


7 Well it's - what you're going to end up with

8 is such a low specific activity in the water that you'll

9 never find it probably. I mean you know that's a guess but

10 just from my familiarity with what's going on.

11

12 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

13 Joyce?

14


16 It's so slow in dissolving that you're not

17 going to get any concentration in the water. The - the

18 through the air. The firing line is just a small line that

19 goes through there.

20


22 I understand that.

23

24

37

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 Richard was the former radiological

3 protection officer at the Proving Ground. Joyce Kuykendall

4 from our Headquarters is the current one (1). Joyce would

5 you like to comment on that?

6

7 MS. JOYCE KUYKENDALL:

8 Some of the Army activity's labs in

9 different areas who've done research on the depleted uranium

10 have done some studies with leaching and with exposure in

11 the water and so forth. And they haven't found any

12 migrations. So I don't believe right now that is an issue

13 that needs to be addressed.

14

15 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

16 Does that answer your question Diane, at

17 least partially?

18


20 Yes. Thank you.

21

22 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

23 Are there any other questions? Okay I would

24 like -- Richard?

38

1 MR. RICHARD HILL:

2 On the - in the Memorandum of Agreement,

3 let's go back to that for a moment, there's some language in

4 there about twenty-five (25) year something? Did I hear

5 that?

6

7 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

8 Yes.

9

10 MR. RICHARD HILL:

11 What - what is that? What's the twenty-five

12 (25) year stuff?

13

14 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

15 Twenty-five (25) years is the Army has

16 agreed to issue to the Air National, the Air Force actually

17 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a real estate permit

18 which is the mechanism by which they establish their

19 legitimacy for being there and getting funding for their

20 activities. Specifically if it needs to be addressed for

21 the Fish and Wildlife Service and for consistency the Army

22 did the same thing with the Air Force. We had one (1) with

23 them but because this MOU addresses a number of other things

24 that weren't addressed in the previous agreement with the

39

1 Air National Guard we rolled everything into one (1)

2 document and we made them, for that specific issue,

3 identical. It's a twenty-five (25) year initial license,

4 real estate license for their activities with ten (10) year

5 renewables subsequent. And as Dr. Robb clearly indicated

6 once a parcel has become a national wildlife refuge there

7 aren't any examples of that ceasing to be what it is. There

8 are mechanisms for that in the MOU should there be a

9 significant reason. But there's nothing in my current

10 understanding that will drive us to that point now.

11


13 Okay. I see. So after this twenty-five

14 (25) years then there's say ten (10) year -

15

16 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

17 Ten (10) year increments thereafter. It's

18 just an automatic you know renewal process. I don't believe

19 there would be, other than a re-issue of the real estate

20 permit, there would not be a need to resign the MOU. That

21 would just be a - a re-issued real estate permit. Now it's

22 effective from 2000 and whatever until 2000 and whatever

23 plus ten (10) years.

24

40

1 MR. RICHARD HILL:

2 I see. Okay. I was asking that not only

3 because of my interest in when the RAB meets but also my

4 interest in who's going to be there down the line as far as

5 these things like the DU?

6

7 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

8 Well the Army is - the Army is remaining

9 with title of the property.

10


12 Un-huh (yes).

13

14 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

15 There is no change or no anticipated

16 termination of the Army's ownership of that property at the

17 present time.

18


20 My concern Paul was should - should anyone

21 detect uranium in the vicinity here would the Army just

22 automatically assume it came from their activities and that

23 there - there would not be an assumption that this might be

24 back ground?

41

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 It would have to depend on the very detailed

3 specifics. And we would have to look at that. Because as

4 you well know there are a lot of radiological nuclides out

5 there. Some of them may be specific and unique to DU, some

6 of them may not. We would have to look. But we would be

7 more than happy to investigate and to check it. But it

8 would - it would depend on the specifics. Kevin?

9

10 MR. KEVIN HERRON:

11 Kevin Herron with IDEM. Paul what are the

12 upcoming mechanisms that are going to be available to the

13 people to voice their opinions about the negotiations that

14 are going to go for the - among the licensing issues on the

15 - on the DU area so that they know what's coming up so they

16 can voice those opinions more than just here?

17

18 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

19 Okay there is - you know Save The Valley

20 organization has applied for a formal hearing on the - on

21 the license because of the state of where the

22 decommissioning plan was in. Because of that request and

23 our negotiations through the NRC and the Administrative

24 Hearing Judge, we in the Army are coordinating very closely

42

1 with Save The Valley on a revised plan. I would suggest

2 that you would - anyone who is interested in that issue that

3 is not part of the Save The Valley organization might want

4 to contact Richard Herring to be part of or provide input to

5 and voice concerns on that issue through them. That would

6 probably be one (1) mechanism. You can also come to the

7 site staff, Mr. Knouf, out at the Proving Ground and provide

8 us whatever input you might have on that. We will be

9 providing as I said before draft revised documents to Save

10 The Valley before they go to the NRC formally and

11 officially. And I'm sure Save The Valley can make those

12 available to the public. If they can't then we can make

13 that available through our office. Ken?

14

15 MR. KEN KNOUF:

16 Paul did you mean to say Richard Herring or

17 Richard Hill?

18

19 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

20 I meant Richard Hill. I'm sorry. Did I say

21 Richard Herring? Richard you're - you're not retired any

22 more.

23

24

43

1 MR. BOB NELSON:

2 Paul can I - can I amplify on that?

3

4 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

5 Sure, go ahead.

6

7 MR. BOB NELSON:

8 Good evening. My name is Bob Nelson. I'm

9 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I'm chief of the

10 Facilities Decommissioning Section that would review the

11 decommissioning plan for this - this site. And to just

12 amplify on what Paul said our regulations require that the

13 licensee, in this case the Army, seek public opinion on the

14 - what we call institutional controls that would be proposed

15 for the site and to present - to consider those comments in

16 preparing their decommissioning plan that they - that they

17 submit to us. So as Paul mentioned that - that avenue was

18 being pursued by the Army. In addition we will develop an

19 Environmental Impact Statement to address all the

20 environmental impacts associated with this action. We do

21 that in two (2) stages, actually three (3) stages. We do a

22 scoping ah - ah investigation at the front end. We actually

23 started that about four (4) or five (5) years ago. We did

24 initial scoping for the EIS and then put it on hold until

44

1 the decommissioning plan was revised and resubmitted. I'm

2 not sure whether we'd go through that scoping process again

3 but we might. Then we - after we developed a Draft

4 Environmental Impact Statement it is released for public

5 comment. And we would - after it's been released for a

6 while we would held - we would hold a meeting in the

7 vicinity here to receive your oral comments as well as take

8 any public comment, written comments throughout the comment

9 period. And then we would use that input in preparing the

10 Final Environmental Impact Statement and making - using that

11 - that document to make a decision on whether to approve the

12 decommissioning plan as submitted. So that in brief is our

13 public involvement process in addition to the hearing

14 process that's already under way.

15

16 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

17 Thank you. Any other questions on any

18 material that I have discussed or presented? Yes sir?

19

20 MR. DON BARNES:

21 I have a question for the NRC.

22

23 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

24 Go ahead.

45

1 MR. DON BARNES:

2 You're talking depleted uranium. Is this

3 the uranium that scared everybody to death? Just how

4 dangerous is this as radiation hazard?

5

6 MR. BOB NELSON:

7 Ah not very unless you pick it up and eat

8 it, ingest it. It is - it's not a real - it's not a direct

9 radiation hazard. Because of the form of the uranium as

10 explained earlier it's not very soluble and therefor not

11 very mobile in the environment. In other words it doesn't

12 move through the ground in the ground water system because

13 of its insolubility. So the real problem is if you pick it

14 up for a long period of time or somehow get fragments and

15 ingest them into your body where then the - the uranium

16 comes into direct contact with sensitive organs and that's a

17 problem. But - and that - that's the reason for you know

18 one (1) of the reasons anyway for restricting access to the

19 - to the site when you have this type of contamination

20 coupled obviously with the unexploded ordnance problem. But

21 if you're not in contact with it there's really no hazard.

22

23 MR. DON BARNES:

24 Thank you.

46

I

1 MR. PAUL CLOUD:

2 Any other questions? Okay while we swap

3 projectors here we'll have about a two (2) minute break.

4 And then the NRC will discuss the decommissioning of the

5 license or the termination of the license. There are

6 there is just one (1) other slide that I want to show before

7 they get up. And this will document when our next meeting

8 is going to be and where. It's scheduled for the 4th of

9 October. That's a Wednesday up in Jennings County in their

10 library at North Vernon. There will be letters sent out

11 with the agenda for that meeting about two (2) to three (3)

12 weeks before the meeting. But- this is you know a heads up

13 advance notice. So if you're interested we can let you know

14 now that that's when our next meeting is. So we will have

15 about a two (2) or three (3) minute break here while I give

16 John Contardi from the NRC the mic and we move the

17 projectors around.

18

19 (SHORT BREAK)

20

21 MR. JOHN CONTARDI:

22 Well good evening. My name is John

23 Contardi. I work for the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

24 Commission. I'm the new project manager for the JPG site.

47

I LI

1 I've been working on the site approximately a month now so

2 some of this I'm still learning for myself. Prior to that

3 I've been providing technical assistance for other sites at

4 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. You've already met my

5 section chief Robert Nelson and there's also Linda Suttora

6 who works on our environmental review team and we will be

7 working on the NEPA process or EIS documentation for the JPG

8 site. So with that - you will have to pardon me with these

9 slides. I'm just going to start with a brief overview. I'm

10 not sure how familiar with you are with the NRC, what we do,

11 what our mission is. So I'll talk about that as well as a

12 brief history about the depleted uranium impact area or the

13 DU impact area followed by the decommissioning plan or the

14 decommissioning process that will be used at JPG. And then

15 the NEPA process, the Environmental Impact Statement process

16 that Nelson had talked about before. Following that would

17 be the site decommissioning that JPG will do. As we know

18 they are pushing for proposing a restricted release scenario

19 so there may not be any decommissioning taking place within

20 the DU impact area. And then the hearing process. A

21 hearing has been requested and granted thus far. And

22 following up the final steps towards license termination.

23 This right here (indicating) is just the - I took this off

24 the NRC web - web page. It's our mission statement.

48

I

1 Basically what it says is our - our mission is to protect

2 the health and safety and the environment from nuclear

3 materials. We do that through several different - or we

4 regulate several different industries or types of processes

5 that's commercial nuclear power reactors, nonpower test

6 reactors, training reactors, test reactors, fuel cycle

7 facilities. A fuel cycle facility would be something that

8 produces the nuclear fuel that goes into the nuclear

9 reactor. Also medical for treating cancer. They use a

10 cobalt 60, the gamma knifes, things like that. We will

11 regulate those sources. Academic, anything that a

12 university uses that's a radio nuclide as well as industrial

13 uses of nuclear material such as gauges to - to measure

14 wells or in some places they can even use radioactive

15 materials to measure the - the level of fluids in tanks and

16 things of that nature. We also regulate the transport,

17 storage and disposal of nuclear materials and their waste.

18 I wasn't sure how - how much everyone would know about JPG

19 so this is just a very brief overview. It's a former

20 Department of Defense site, a proving ground where they did

21 testing and evaluation of Department of Defense weaponry,

22 particularly depleted uranium, tank rounds basically fired

23 anti-tank rounds. There's also.- the site contains

24 unexploded ordnance. I'm sure most people are familiar now

49

I

1 with the discussions that have been going on prior to this.

2 The - the decommissioning plan, basically JPG has submitted

3 a decommissioning plan in August or '99. The NRC has

4 reviewed it. We prepared a Request for Additional

5 Information in areas that we thought maybe were inadeq

6 inadequate, confusing, maybe they didn't address some areas,

7 things of that nature. It is not unusual for us to put out

8 RAIs or Requests for Additional Information. Usually we do

9 that so you shouldn't look upon it as if it was a bad

10 decommissioning plan or anything of that nature. It's

11 it's typically done almost always. So following the RAI

12 they provided their responses which just came in I guess

13 maybe about two (2) weeks ago. And as we were discussing

14 earlier they're going to go ahead and provide a new or

15 revised decommissioning plan. Following that the NRC will

16 develop a safety evaluation report as well as the NEPA

17 documentation which will be the Environmental Impact

18 Statement. And the decommissioning plan will then be

19 accepted or has been accepted actually at this point.

20

21 MR. KEN KNOUF:

22 John is it appropriate to ask questions now

23 or do you want to wait to the end?

24

50

I


2 It's - it's a pretty brief presentation. If

3 you can hold it that would be - is that okay?

4

5 MR. KEN KNOUF:

6 Yes.

7


9 The Environmental Impact Statement process

10 is part of NEPA and I'm not sure how much people out there

11 are familiar with the NEPA process. It basically provides

12 the legal frame work for any major action at federal

13 facilities. The philosophy behind it is to make sure that

14 the proper choices is chosen so you don't end up on Date

15 Line with two hundred and eighty million (280,000,000)

16 Americans saying how could this happen? The EIS is supposed

17 to prevent that. And as Nelson said before we're going to

18 well first we will have possibly a scoping process. Scoping

19 has been done before. It may or may not occur again.

20 Regardless, when the draft supplement is developed it will

21 actually be a tiered EIS that will be attached to the 1995

22 Army Final EIS. We're not going to redo an entire EIS,

23 although this will be complete in regards to the DU impact

24 area. I'm sorry if I'm in your way. With that a notice of

51

I

1 availability for the draft supplement EIS will be published.

2 And what this does is it allows the public, you, to be able

3 to find it, to know it's out there, have access towards it,

4 and following that we will have a public comment period as

5 well as meetings where you will be able to comment or ask

6 questions about what's being proposed, what's in this EIS,

7 if you like it, if you don't like it, and those will be

8 official comments and they will be addressed. Following

9 that there will be a Final EIS. We will go ahead and

10 finalize it and that will be like I said added on to the

11 1995 Army Final EIS. With that it will be published and the

12 Record of Decision or a ROD will also be made publicly

13 available. And all the ROD is is it - it tells you what's

14 being done, what choice was chosen and what's going to

15 happen with the site. The site decommissioning for JPG as

16 we've been discussing there's a lot of unexploded ordnance.

17 And thus far it's been proposed that no remediation takes

18 place due to the economic burden and the possible health

19 hazard to workers or EOD who has to go in and remove the

20 unexploded ordnance. So under this they may not do any

21 decommissioning at all. But that - that's not necessarily

22 the final answer. They may end up doing decommissioning

23 work. But as it stands right now they are not planning on

24 it. JPG will prepare a final status survey. The NRC will

52

1 review that and following that the site will be acceptable

2 for release provided that we find their final status survey

3 acceptable. And this is just kind of a diagram of the

4 process. Up at the top it has a license amendment request.

5 This is the decommissioning plan. And it goes down to the

6 acceptance review, notice and opportunity for a hearing.

7 We're already through these steps. The Save The Valley

8 requested a hearing. It has been granted. Now we're down

9 to the request for additional information. They've given us

10 that back. We're going to go back up and they're going to

11 revise the decommissioning plan. Since the hearing has

12 already been granted I don't believe we'll go through that

13 process again. Then it will come back down to us and we

14 will do a EIS which I was talking about before as well as a

15 safety evaluation report. After that there will be the

16 hearing. I'm not sure of the definite time if there is a

17 hearing. If it's not resolved it could be - well it will

18 come after the EIS. It could be several years from now. I

19 think right now it's scheduled to be maybe in 2003 of 2002.

20 After that the licensing action whether or not this will

21 determine if the license is terminated or not. And the

22 hearing process basically we put out a notice and

23 opportunity for hearing. If it's requested it is reviewed.

24 In this case Save The Valley requested it. It was reviewed

53

1 and granted. Therefore there will be a hearing. As I said

2 before the hearing time will be determined by the presiding

3 officer and at this time that - that time is not known. The

4 final steps. The NRC staff most likely the project manager

5 along with other members of the NRC will prepare a

6 commission paper or some type of avenue to notify our

7 commission. Our commission are five (5) publicly appointed

8 commissioners who vote on actions that come before them.

9 This will be an action and they will determine if it is ah

10 suitable for decommissioning, if they agree with what's

11 going on. If it is in fact that they vote for it the

12 license will be terminated. This is my contact information.

13 One (1) thing I want to emphasize is that the NRC is a

14 it's an open agency. I have a security clearance. I have

15 yet to see a classified document. If there's a document

16 related to DU or what the NRC regulates and you have trouble

17 finding it, you don't like something that's going on, feel

18 free to contact me. Like I said though we're only

19 responsible for the depleted uranium portion of the site or

20 anything that may affect that site, anything that would

21 allow further migration or anything that could affect the

22 environment or public health. But we do have a web site.

23 All our documents should be publicly available that we have

24 a public document room so like I said if you have trouble-

54

I

1 finding anything, if you need someone to talk to about the

2 depleted uranium, I'm always open and we are a very open

3 agency. I don't want anyone to think that we're behind

4 closed doors and doing anything behind your back. So with

5 that I do appreciate you allowing us to come here and talk

6 and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them

7 or have my section chief or Linda help. Yes sir?

8

9 MR. KEN KNOUF:

10 As part of the NEPA process my experience

11 with EISs has been that they generally are looking at the

12 effects of actions in terms of alternatives. Now this seems

13 to be, especially EIS, this really isn't any other

14 alternative but to object to the merits of the

15 decommissioning plan, but are you going to be assessing

16 possible effects of components of the decommissioning plan

17 like sampling frequency and how many wells might be tested,

18 how often they might be tested? Is that going to be a part

19 of that or do you guys oversee that?

20

21 MS. LINDA SUTTORA:

22 We're in the area. Before we do anything

23 with the decommissioning plan - I mean before we do anything

24 with the Environmental Impact Statement we have to be a -

55

1 little bit further along with the decommissioning plan. And

2 typically NEPA looks at alternatives and even when the Army

3 may not present another alternative, we may you know request

4 that the Army present those with other possible - I mean for

5 example there is the - an option is to clean it all up, to

6 pull out all that stuff, even though it's not technically

7 feasible at this time. We may ask the Army to explore that

8 and explain - and be able to present all possible reasons

9 why it's not technically feasible and what would make it 10 feasible? That's an example of the type of alternative we

11 look at. Even though the Army doesn't feel as though it's

12 feasible at this time, there's got to be a breaking point at

13 which point it becomes feasible and what is that point? And

14 then so that people would know in the future what to look

15 for.

16

17 MR. ROBERT NELSON:

18 I would like to expand on that. Bob Nelson

19 with the NRC. Actually there's three (3) alternatives that

20 come to mind right away. Do nothing, which is maintain the

21 license.

22


24 That's required I believe as part of the

56

I

1 alternative.

2


4 We always look at the no action alternative.

5 And in that case - in this case that means maintain the

6 license. Second alternative is the proposed alternative,

7 that is to release it under conditions of restricted use.

8 The third is clean it up, get it out of here. So we would

9 look at at least those three (3). There may be others. I'm

10 not sure what they would be at this point but we - I'm

11 convinced that we would look at least at those three (3)

12 alternatives. And there may be iterations of those

13 alternatives that we would want to look at. Some mitigating

14 actions that maybe - maybe not have been proposed that come

15 to our mind that we think maybe ought to be added in to the

16 plan for example. But we really haven't started the process

17 yet so I don't want to get too far down that road committing

18 to things that we haven't really started to look at yet.

19 But - but those are the types of alternatives we would look

20 at with an EIS.

21


23 I don't mean to - after I start thinking

24 about it I'm sort of baffled. I'm trying to understand

57

1 actually what the difference is in what it means to say the 2 license is terminated? What changes apart from the fact 3 that they're not going to shoot DU - because you said one 4 (1) alternative is to do nothing and keep the license? And 5 such other options I think are do nothing and terminate the 6 license? I'm not clear what changes when the license is

7 terminated.

8


10 When our - when the license is terminated 11 our regulatory involvement with the site ends.

12


14 So there will be no NRC?

15


17 There would be no NRC over sight of the 18 site. There has been some discussion tonight about 19 requirements for long term monitoring. If we felt that 20 there was the requirement for long term monitoring, and that 21 needed to be enforced, we would not terminate the license. 22 Because absent a license we don't have a way to enforce that 23 action. So if that's our conclusion that monitoring has to 24 be done for five (5) years, ten (10) years, fifteen (15)

58

1 years, then we would not terminate the license until we were

2 confident that that monitoring was no longer necessary, that

3 the state of the environment was well known, that there were

4 no - and that the conditions of our license termination rule

5 had ben met. Yes ma'am?

6


8 Well to continue that line of thought, given

9 that, and I will accept for the moment your assertion that

10 while the depleted uranium is in the ground it is not

11 dissolving, is not corroding, and therefore it is not

12 migrating? And so long as there is no explosions, there are

13 no explosions anymore, that there is no migration in terms

14 of movement into the soil and into the air, which is by far

15 the worst pathways as far as I can figure out, then why

16 would the Army even want to revoke the license when there's

17 still a potential for something happening because there's

18 still unexploded ordnance there? And until you remove both

19 the ordnance and the depleted uranium there's still a

20 potential for risk? Why would anybody want to revoke the

21 license?

22


24 Okay let me - let me back up a little bit.

59

:IL

1 and comment on the assertions that you say I made.

2


4 Okay. Well references have been made to,

5 how's that?

6


8 Okay. What I said was - what I said was 9 that this type of uranium is not mobile in the environment.

10 And I did not comment on the risk of an explosion or a 11 possible spread by an explosion.

12


14 Okay.

15


17 These are the types of things we would look 18 at in an EIS which we have not done yet. Okay? But I know 19 from previous experience that the statement I made, I'm 20 competent that this type of uranium does not - does not 21 readily move in the environment. So that the - it's not 22 likely that ah there would be an off site exposure.

23

24

60


2 Should there be no explosion?

3


5 Should - should there be no explosions that

6 would spread the - spread the uranium. Okay? And I'm not

7 going to comment on the likelihood of explosion because that

8 - that I'm definitely not in a position to comment on. But

9 - and then - then you asked why would the Army want to

10 terminate the license? Well I can't speak for the Army

11 okay? But if we are asked by a licensee to terminate the

12 lic - to terminate the license we apply what we call our

13 license termination rule. And the Army has to demonstrate

14 to us that they meet the conditions of the termination rule

15 which is basically a dose based rule. And the dose basis

16 for the rule is really in two (2) parts. For a unrestricted

17 release, which is not apparently being applied for here, the

18 dose criteria is twenty-five (25) millirem per year to the

19 average member of the critical group. Now twenty-five (25)

20 millirem per year to the average member of the critical

21 group under - for an unrestricted release. And normally

22 what that means to us, what we look at, our default analysis

23 is a farmer residing on the property. Okay. In the case of

24 a restricted release the - with the restrictions in place -

61

1 the licensee has to demonstrate that that twenty-five (25)

2 millirem dose criteria is met with the restrictions in

3 place, whatever those restrictions may be. Okay. Then they

4 have to look at the scenario when those restrictions - if

5 those restrictions were to fail, for whatever reason. It's

6 not required that they demonstrate how they fail, they

7 simply have to assume that they're no longer effective.

8 Then the dose limit is one hundred (100) millirem per year.

9 And if they can make those demonstrations then we will

10 terminate the license.

11


13 Could you state from your position what the

14 benefits to the Army would be for termination of the

15 license?

16


18 Ah administratively not having another

19 agency involved with the site.

20


22 What's the licensing fees?

23

24

62

I


2 Well the Army doesn't pay licensing fees.

3


5 Well that's true. They don't.

6


8 It's - it's basically not having - not

9 having the need to report to us and eliminating that

10 regulatory over sight, which is clearly - which is clearly

11 their call. We can't advise them what they - go ahead.

12


14 Okay. One (1) last question. You have

15 well there have been assertions made by you and him, by

16 Richard -- Richard Herring, okay that it does not migrate and

17 it's stable in virtually all environmental conditions so

18 long as there's no explosions. Is there a possibility for

19 you to post that information or to post those studies on

20 your web site? Or are they already there?

21


23 The - the demonstration about not - not

24 being non mobile, you - your Army has to make to us. What

63

II

1 I'm talking about is my experience with this type of

2 uranium.

3


5 But your experience has to come from

6 someplace and there has to be some sort of documentation.

7


9 Ah I'd have to - I would have to look and

10 see what we've got. We do have some studies on solubility

11 of uranium. It's mostly looks - looking at tests to

12 demonstrate solubility. But we can - we can look into that.

13 I can't think off hand. The study does not come to my mind

14 immediately that would - but I'm sure we can find one (1).

15


17 I mean the solubility is going to depend on

18 some factors. The solubility can increase as you decrease

19 in ph. But typically you're not going to see that in

20 surface waters and in ground waters. So at a site like this

21 or in most typical sites uranium has a fairly high

22 retardation coefficient. It doesn't travel quickly through

23 soils, through any water type filtration soil like the

24 saturated-unsaturated zones of the soil. So even in

64

1 situations if you have low ph and oxidizing conditions and

2 things like that it's still not going to be that - that

3 mobile. But it's not to say that it's insoluble all the

4 time. But at this site it most likely will be.

5


7 Asserted based on what facts that it's going

8 to be true in this instance?

9


11 Just by the typical - I don't want to say

12 geography but of the soils of the site.

13


15 What are the soils then?

16


18 They're till. And I know there's clay

19 layers.

20


22 Okay.

23

24

65

I


2 And typically they have high ion - ion

3 exchange capacities which means it's going to be even

4 slower. But the ph is even just taking a general soil, a

5 typical - it's hard to say like a prototypical soil but

6 something on that nature, uranium is going to be fairly

7 immobile just due to the nature of it. There's other radio

8 nuclides. Take Tritium which is an isotope of hydrogen,

9 very mobile. Because it flows just like water. Different

10 radio nuclides are going to travel faster or slower in

11 mediums than others just depending on the type of element.

12 And uranium happens to be one (1) of those where it's an

13 actinide and it - it doesn't travel quickly.

14

15 MS. LINDA SUTTORA:

16 I believe a lot of studies have done by the

17 Army and Department of Energy on the different radio

18 isotopes and their travel through soils and waters and so

19 it's probably unlikely the NRC itself has done studies

20 although I don't know absolutely. I haven't looked at

21 literature. But it's very likely that the Army and

22 Department of Energy had done studies.

23

24

66

I


2 I think the question is more the conditions

3 of the depleted uranium - well the conditions of JPG and the

4 conditions of depleted uranium in that the casings which is

5 where they are I assume in the casings primarily?

6


8 If - if that's your question?

9


11 Yeah.

12


14 Then it's - it's the Army's job to

15 demonstrate that to us at this site.

16


18 And that is something that should be

19 included.

20


22 We're talking - what we've talked about is

23 gen - generally - generally speaking uranium in the

24 environment in this form is not - is not highly mobile for

67

1 the reasons we have explained. But it's still incumbent 2 upon the Army to demonstrate that to us in their 3 decommissioning plan. Sir you've had your hand up for some

4 time.

5


7 I just want to be clear. An Environment 8 Impact Statement is required both for decommissioning and

9 for termination?

10


12 No. The Environmental Impact Statement is 13 is developed because the licensee has submitted a 14 decommissioning plan and has requested an action by the - by 15 the NRC. That action is approving that decommissioning 16 plan. So once the plans - the Environmental Impact 17 Statement would be prepared for the decommissioning plan. 18 There would not be another Environmental Impact Statement 19 prepared for termination. Termination would be an 20 administrative action taken by the commission after it had 21 it was convinced that the commitments made in the 22 decommissioning plan had been made. Yes sir?

23

24

68

1 1-


2 The terminology I'm just not clear about

3 about institutional - I forget the term.

4


6 Institutional control.

7


9 Institutional control. Which institution

10 are we talking about? Are we talking about the United Sates

11 Army? Or some agency thereof?

12


14 Apparently in this - in this case it would

15 be the Army. They would - they would retain title to the

16 land. Yes sir?

17

18 MR. TIM MALONEY:

19 Is the NRC part of the Department of Energy?

20


22 No it is not.

23

24

69

1 MR. TIM MALONEY:

2 Is it an independent agency?

3


5 It's an independent agency. At one (1) time 6 the Department of Energy and NRC were in one (1) 7 organization and that was called the Atomic Energy 8 Commission. In 1974 the - the two (2) functions were split 9 by Congress into the - what was first called the Energy

10 Research and Development Administration and then that became 11 the Department of Energy and then the Nuclear Regulatory

12 Commission was on - was set - was separate from the

13 Department. Yes sir?

14


16 I just have one (1) more general thing. 17 Because when you were going over your mission statement at 18 the beginning, I was trying to figure out where in the world 19 this particular phenomenon fits that - in that model and it 20 wasn't obvious. And I was just wondering just in general if 21 you could say to us the kinds of concerns or what the 22 concern about public health and safety that depleted uranium 23 facilities like this pose to your agency as compared to 24 reactors and medical use and all that other stuff? Are we

70

ý I-

1 talking about something that's really very marginal or poses

2 great issues of public safety and health and so on?

3


5 Well ah I will - first of all we haven't

6 completed our review so I'm not going to comment in

7 finality. But let me say that depleted - depleted uranium

8 well let me also comment that we don't - that NRC is - this

9 is a rather unique site for us. This is the first site that

10 we've really looked at that has this type of contamination

11 to this level of this specific type and it's really isolated

12 to a single type of contamination. Normally at - at sites

13 that are undergoing decommissioning that are - that are

14 complex we're looking at multiple radio nuclides. And often

15 ah other hazards. There's ah for example a - a firing range

16 in Lakes - Lake City, Missouri, outside of Salt - outside of

17 St. Louis. They tested depleted uranium as well but much

18 smaller munitions on a firing range much smaller than this.

19 Ah and the - the issue there is not only the depleted

20 uranium but the amount of lead in the ground. So actually

21 the lead is - at that site is more significant hazard than

22 the depleted uranium at the Lake City site. So each site is

23 - is unique and it's type of contamination, the extent of

24 contamination and the hazards that's posed. Now you asked

71

1 me the kind of - I think you asked me to compare the hazard

2 here with other sites? The real - the real hazard here as

3 far as I see it is not the

reply to at1nennon of · 2020. 1. 4. · jpg rab meeting minutes or the next scheduled meeting,...

Documents